Aleem Bawany

http://aleembawany.com

7 Comments

    • ON: Sat Jun 7th 10:32 AM
      Commented on:
      Microsoft: iPhone Envy Is Starting to Show
      This is probably the first response from Microsoft in a series of many that will follow as part of a broader campaign for Windows Mobile.

      Apple and Microsoft will have varied strategies but should iPhone gain dominance it will actually be good for Microsoft, as counter-intuitive as that may sound.

      Ultimately, I believe the market will be reduced to Google, Microsoft and Apple. The reason is--as Bill Gates himself put it--these are the only three companies that share the core software DNA. I am also slightly skeptical of Google's Android platform but given that it is Google and they are using a powerful Linux core the ingredients seem favorable though the overall recipe may not seem be compelling.

      If the iPhone can make a sizable dent in the Smart Phone market, the current phone makers will look to competitive offerings and the next best choice is Windows Mobile, and that is why the iPhone is good for Windows Mobile. Windows Mobile just like the OS X for the iPhone is an actual Operating System intertwined with the roadmap of it's Desktop counter part (Windows XP/Vista) and that is a moat Apple and Microsoft enjoy exclusively. Also, Windows Mobile in the face of renewed competition from Apple will dedicate more resources and minds to this segment.

      In the long run Microsoft will have to overcome some big obstacles which it could not with the Zune. Namely, the lack of vertical integration will mean the end product will not be as harmonious as the iPhone (services cloud, hardware, software, applications, desktop integration and interoperability) and that is something they will soon need to remedy. They really need to look beyond Windows Media Player and Outlook and actually come out with an iTunes like software that provides a centralized management interface for the end consumer (the corporate sphere would be better off using Outlook).

      Microsoft's weakness, I believe, comes from it's greatest strength. They are a platforms company and want Windows Mobile to have the same dominance in the mobile phone market as Windows XP enjoys in the desktop market. The platform strategy is brilliant if you can succeed at it. Not only are margins on software unparalleled but if your platform is the driver for all mobile markets, you can corner the entire market.

      The problem (and Microsoft's weakness) is that when your platform has to run on dozens of different manufacturers' phones each having different configurations (screen sizes, resolutions, touch screen vs roller ball, skins and themes etc) each change requires testing across hundreds of combinations and that makes the problem a lot more complex and the speed of execution much slower. Apple on the other hand can push updates every week if they wanted through iTunes and each update it makes need only be tested on a single device. The ease of development, management and deployment is something that few can appreciate but it is one of Apple's biggest strength.

      But if you are Nokia or Motorola looking to compete with OS X for the iPhone, your next best option is Windows Mobile. Symbian will not sustain this competition.

      Veering a bit off topic, I also feel the application store for the iPhone will be huge. It will be to the iPhone what the iTunes music store was to the iPod. You need only look at the native GMail application on the iPhone/iTouch to realize how much more powerful the User eXperience (UX) is compared to the web based version. Further, if your competition is pushing out apps on the iPhone, you will probably have to react and all that bodes well for Apple.
      View article »
    • ON: Sun Apr 27th 14:35 PM
      Commented on:
      Apple's Bountiful Revenues Are Bigger Than Ever
      This error has come up before as well in various articles and I don't think your accounting is quite right.

      The revenues would certainly not be 9.9bn as the deferred revenue is cumulative and had revenues not been deferred to begin with, the deferred revenue figure would never have reached 2.4bn for the quarter. So adding the sum of all previous quarters' deferred revenue to arrive at the 9.9bn does not indicate much if anything.
      View article »
    • ON: Thu Apr 24th 17:43 PM
      Commented on:
      Motorola's Loss is Apple's Gain
      Deferred revenue is cumulative, it was not the total for this quarter and I don't believe it has anything to do with MOT. Further the iPhone is in the smart phone category and MOT's drop came through a slumping demand in other segement (as did NOK's).

      The two figures definitely have nothing to do with each other--it's sheer coincidence.
      View article »
    • ON: Mon Apr 21st 17:20 PM
      Commented on:
      Google Strong, but Microsoft Pays Attention to Verticals
      I completely agree with your view that verticals are important. The long tail has a lot of chump change that adds up.

      When it comes to searching, you sometimes want to limit your search to certain domains or always include certain keywords which is the key to a vertical search--essentially a subset of a larger set. And Google is addressing this with its Google Custom Search product.

      Verticals are a subset of the broader search and even within there are many verticals. It is something that Google cannot do directly, but must be created by the community at large. If you create a vertical for cars, then you have sub-verticals for hobbyist, sales, history, green cars running on biofuels which coincides with other verticals. Google cannot possibly attempt to categorize and target these vertical and its an exercise best left to the community. Hence Google Custom Search (GCS) bridges this gap and quite beautifully I should add.

      GSC allows you to limit your searches to domains, add certain key words to all searches originating from your custom search engine and best of all, the ads displayed on the side of those searches generate revenue for the webmaster responsible for creating and managing the vertical search engine. Google obviously gets revenues from the spread (what advertisers pay - what it pays websites) and both parties win. The API for GCS is very simple and powerful (easy to implement, easily manageable through web based dashboards etc).

      In fact, I am fairly certain that Google will generate substantial revenue growth as this feature gains adoption and critical mass. Imagine publishing platform like WordPress and Movable Type adopting GCS as default engines (plugins also exist for web developers to integrate these into their websites within minutes).

      The value proposition for publishing platforms and web developers to adopt such systems is not only the additional revenue generated when users click on ads from these search pages, but also the quality of search. Unlike enterprise Google boxes that are installed in corporate server rooms, GCS uses the very same Google technology that is people are accustomed to and benefits from all the refinements on the Google back end. The current state of search is quite lousy on these publishing platforms. They use the highly substandard search facilities built into the SQL database upon which they are built.

      At the end of the day, going after verticals is not a search platform strategy, its a portal strategy (MSN Autos, et al). Google has taken the better, more correct approach and while Windows Live does offer custom searches, it suffers from the competitive drawbacks that Windows Live search faces from Google Search.
      View article »
    • ON: Thu Mar 27th 09:20 AM
      Commented on:
      Apple's iPhone Mistakes
      Peter021,

      The slow roll-out is a launch strategy which has proven successful with many gadgets in creating marketing hype. If Apple was facing excessive demand it would not have cut prices.

      The products have planned obsolescence and deprecating them ahead of time or delays in newer versions would lead to sub-optimal utility.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      View article »
    • ON: Wed Mar 26th 12:19 PM
      Commented on:
      Apple's iPhone Mistakes
      Author posted the above comment.
      View article »
    • ON: Wed Mar 26th 12:18 PM
      Commented on:
      Apple's iPhone Mistakes
      Jobs' calls the carriers "orifices"--... is no secret that he hates them and would like to have them reduced to pipes. That is what the iPhone is setting to achieve and that is why it does not have the ATT branding with the ATT website as default and the ATT apps on the desktop (the walled garden approach). The fact that Jobs' is having to sign an exclusive contract with an industry whose practices he abhors and the fact that ATT gave up so much ground and the whole China Mobile deal going sour... are all indicators that this deal was anything but smooth sailing and that dealing with mobile carriers is not easy.

      iPhone had excess inventory upon launch. The price had to be dropped. It was a compromise that hurt the bottom line. If that is not an indication of the company's lapse in demand expectations I don't know what is. The share's drop in price from $200+ to current levels and their last earnings call all point to execution glitches. The slump in demand for the iPod is also another indicator for the paradigm shift from PMPs to integrated phones--a shift that Apple itself has iterate.

      I have accumulated a lot of AAPL stock at the 119-130 price levels and am extremely bullish on the company but these facts remain.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»